This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Judaism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish cultureTemplate:WikiProject Jewish cultureJewish culture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish Women Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is Lee Grant born in 1925 or 1927? I'm confused. IMDB says 1927. Something else sats 1925. Ask Dinah Manoff. She knows, I think.--E2e3v6 (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Grant was born in 1925. She lies about her age, like many actresses. She used to claim 1931 as her year of birth.The Intelius reflink I provided should show she is 86 as of today, her birthday. Happy 86th, Lee!!Quis separabit? 21:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of a September 2023 interview, she said she is currently 97 and a half. Due to censuses and interviews in recent years, I think it's same to assume that she was born in 1925. [1]https://forward.com/culture/562182/lee-grant-blacklist-oscar-shampoo-tell-me-a-riddle/ Remainsoflilies (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. Lee Grant was born in 1927, according to IMDB. I know.--E2e3v6 (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you care to explain just exactly how you know I will be happy to digest that info, but IMDb is NOT always right. Census records and Intelius records are more reliable. Quis separabit? 00:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::: Turns out we were both wrong; according to Intelius search today, she was born in 1928, and is thus 83 years old! (WHO WOULDA GUESSED IT?) Given how rapidly Intelius changed the year of birth, I suspect Grant or someone on her behalf must have faxed a copy of something sufficiently trustworthy for Intelius to make the adjustment. Wow. Quis separabit? 20:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOPE — she's a sly one but I checked both the 1930 and 1940 U.S. censuses at Ancestry.com and she was indeed born in 1925, just as I thought.

The 1930 and 1940 U.S. censuses at Ancestry.com both show Grant was born in 1925. The 1930 census (Source Citation: Year: 1930; Census Place: Manhattan, New York, New York; Roll: 1577; Page: 11B; Enumeration District: 1027; Image: 588.0; FHL microfilm: 2341312. Source Information: Ancestry.com. 1930 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2002. Original data: United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1930. T626, 2,667 rolls) gives her age as 4 and 6/12 months (i.e. 4 ½ years old).

The 1940 census (Source Citation: Year: 1940; Census Place: New York, New York, New York; Roll: T627_2671; Page: 9A; Enumeration District: 31-1922. Source Information: Ancestry.com. 1940 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2012. Original data: United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1940. T627, 4,643 rolls) gives her age as 14. Although it should be noted that her first name is given as "Lyniva" in 1930 and "Lyoua" in 1940. Quis separabit? 23:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date requires a secondary source. Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:DOB. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:DOB: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." So does that mean just mention "1925"? Quis separabit? 16:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, even just the year requires a proper secondary source. I'm not going to remove it myself but if someone else does, it shouldn't go back in without a source. At least that's my interpretation. Note that WP:DOB doesn't pre-empt the other parts of WP:BLP. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is that BLP discourages listing a birth date unless it has been widely reported outside Wikipedia, but listing the birth year only requires a secondary source. And I would guess imdb counts as a secondary source, but I have not looked into it in detail. If you need more help with policy questions, I suggest going back to the BLP noticeboard and asking. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me revise the above. Someone at BLP/N has said that imdb is not considered a proper secondary source. Personally I don't know, I'm just guessing. I do know that the census is not a proper secondary source. Suggest you continue to ask at BLP/N if you need more help. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Gilbert Gottfried's Amazing Colossal Podcast #124 Lee said she was blacklisted at the age of 24. If she was blacklisted in 1951, that would put her birth year at 1927, depending upon the actual date of the blacklist (and assuming her memory is accurate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B108:C4F3:0:8:5D1E:D01 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Gilbert Gottfried's Amazing Colossal Podcast #124, Lee also mentioned a trip to Paris at age 6. According to ship records in the New York, Passenger Lists, 1820-1957 database, she was 7. If you look at the image of the record, not just the index, the record actually lists her date of birth as 31 Oct 1925.

Ship: Champlain Date of Arrival: 12 Jul 1933 Passenger: Lyova Rosenthal Age: 7 Date of birth: 31 Oct 1925 Birth Location: New York Port of Departure: Le Havre, France Port of Arrival: New York, New York

(Source Citation Year: 1933; Arrival: New York, New York; Microfilm Serial: T715, 1897-1957; Microfilm Roll: Roll 5355; Line: 27; Page Number: 45 Source Information Ancestry.com. New York, Passenger Lists, 1820-1957 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4C01:274E:F852:C008:AE23:8138 (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add an additional wrinkle to things, I've had a look at the Manhattan Birth Indexes for the 1920s and there appears to be no record of a Lyova Rosenthal (or any female child with that surname) being born there on 31 October 1925-1929. There is, however, a record of a "Rosenthal, female" (no given name stated) who was born in Manhattan on 31 October 1924. Hmmm... Muzilon (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been unable to access any birth records, and cannot verify the claims in the comment above as a result.

The image for the Paris trip says 1926, not 1925, but she'd only be six at the time, not seven. --Ronz (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, new evidence -- Ancestry.com now has the New York Birth Index 1910-1965 online:

Lyova Rosenthal

Birth Date: 21 Oct 1925 [sic - the transcription page says "21" Oct here, but the actual Index page image scan - which you will need an Ancestry subscription to view - clearly says 31 Oct]

Birth Place: Bronx, New York City, New York, USA [NB. not "Manhattan"].--Muzilon (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is very compelling. We had pretty much narrowed it down to 1925 or 1926 as of the RFC at the bottom of the page. A lot has happened since this particular discussion though and changing the date again would require overturning the RFC consensus, which may require a fresh RFC. I suggest you start a completely new discussion at the bottom of the talk page rather than reviving an old discussion. This is new evidence and should be reviewed with fresh eyes. Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the above and this link, I think it’s pretty to confirm 1925 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XQBXR8HVuQ&app=desktop Mazaman (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This X17onlineVideo video is already discussed below. I'm hesitant to use it because of the inconsistent information she gives in it. She appears distracted and looks to be simply going along with the reporters. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought WP policy is "no original research" for material in an article. The forgoing all falls under the category of original research. Hence WP's admonition to not report a birthdate that is not widely reported elsewhere. If it's not widely reported, then don't include it. WP is about gathering together information that is available elsewhere, and debates are about credibility of the material so found, not about playing detectives in uncovering facts about the original subject. 107.132.168.109 (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grant herself has confirmed it as being 1925 here, as she noted that she is 97 at the time of the interview.

https://forward.com/culture/562182/lee-grant-blacklist-oscar-shampoo-tell-me-a-riddle/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=afternoonedition_7816303 41.23.40.72 (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not usable, for the reasons already given. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well for a start, she doesn't actually confirm she was born in 1925, does she? The interview seems to have taken place some time in September and she states she is "97 and a half", which puts her birth date a month or either side of March 1926. Considering that it is universally accepted across all the sources that she born in October, then this is a major revelation in itself if it turns out to be true. She gives a different age/birth date in pretty much every interview she gives. She's not reliable, and I think she does it intentionally. Thanks for the source though, we'll add it to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be some mention of this incident? For a good while over the years--before I came to think of her first for her memorable turn in the memorable "In the Heat of the Night"--I must admit that this was the first, and pretty much only, thing I would think of when hearing the name Lee Grant.

I don't know all the details, but my usually-pretty-reliable recollection is as follows: she appeared on "The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson" a while after a sitcom in which she starred--which I presume but don't know for a fact was "Fay" on NBC--had been cancelled. Now, I never saw a "Fay" episode, nor did I watch that edition of "Tonight", and indeed can't even confirm it was Carson, rather than one of his various guest hosts, that she was talking to that particular evening. In any case, the conversation on "Tonight" somehow came around to her recently-shuttered show. It was then that she uttered one of the most famous off-air quotes in TV history, attributing its cancellation to an unnamed "mad programmer" at the network. (While I didn't see "Tonight" that evening or in repeat--though I doubt it was ever repeated by NBC, given its notorious nature--I did read about it a day or so later, and then would see frequent references to it for several years thereafter.) Supposedly the outburst made her persona non grata throughout the television industry for years at least, which is understandable, especially if "Fay" was the sitcom in question, given that "Tonight" was also an NBC property. Can anyone add any details to this? Thanks in advance. [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN

• Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKBc_zJ65qA User:JCHeverly 05:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY 87th BIRTHDAY, LEE. Be glad you're alive and healthy. (My father would have turned 87 this year had he not died in 2009.) Quis separabit? 22:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article states, and Ms Grant stated to Robert Osborne on TCM in a guest programmer segment (7/30/2014), that she had been blacklisted for 12 years. Isn't that incorrect??? She was "outed" in Red Channels magazine in 1952 and did not appear on the screen, at least, until 1959 in "Middle of the Night." Did she appear under a stage name??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_of_the_Night I think the article needs more factual research.User:JCHeverly 16:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Answering own question: According to Lee Grant, her's was the very last name to be taken off the blacklist in 1964.User:JCHeverly 05:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In one of her many book interviews this summer, Grant said she had three children and two were step sons.User:JCHeverly 05:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being that the reliable sources have her dob as being between 1925 and 1928, I suggest rather than having the article look silly with no birth date, we include a reliable sourced one, note the differing cites, and add a note explaining the others. We can let the reader decide. I'll add one to the infobox pending further consensus or debates, and do we really care?--Light show (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is there any reason to give special attention to Only Victims: A Study of Show Business Blacklisting, By Robert Vaughn, as his viewpoint would not be any more reliable than the two encyclopedias cited in the infobox. He used his PhD thesis for the book, and adding text about the book itself is unnecessary and undue promotion, since it's already listed as a citation with all the others. --Light show (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is unjust. The book cites records from the hearings where she stated she was born that year.Radiohist (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These links:
http://www.familytreenow.com/search/census/results/image/lr4snn600n0
http://www.familytreenow.com/search/census/results?first=Lyova&middle=H&last=Rosenthal&state=NY&rid=0s0&smck=ULmAoibGO4nwrcmj0g9R7w
indicate Lyova Rosenthal was 14 years old in April 1940 (age provided as of last birthday, i.e. 10/31/1939), showing that 1925 is the correct YOB, just for the heck of it. Quis separabit? 15:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that her correct age of birth according to available records indicates she was born in 1925, which means she is turning 90 in 2015. IMBD also uses 1925. HesioneHushabye (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But she is denying it and OTRS directed that the wording re year of birth be changed. Quis separabit? 19:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 90th birthday, Lee!! Quis separabit? 12:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin Publishing, which published her autobiography, is likely the best source. Their description on the flyleaf states, "At age twenty-four she was nominated for an Academy Award for Detective Story..." The film was released in 1951, and she would have been nominated in 1952, which would put her birth date in 1928. --Light show (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She always lied about her age; her autobiography is not going to be any different. Census records are clear. Quis separabit? 02:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Kirk Douglas in his own autobiography, I Am Spartacus!, and the star of Detective Story, said she was twenty-three when they filmed it. --Light show (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She always lied about her age; how could Douglas know except what she told him. Quis separabit? 02:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is obviously very uncomfortable about that, so please just let it go. Why do you insist on this? Also this really isn't a topic for discussion.Radiohist (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to guidelines about using primary sources for her date of birth, most, if not all of them should probably be removed. This Holmesian attention to her dob has produced an "analysis paralysis" status which has undermined the bio, IMO. We have a bio of a famous person with no date of birth, along with a questionable assertion that there is a "dispute." Are there actually disputes about it? If so, they are not cited. Just because different sources give a different date for an event, does not alone create a controversy.

Nobody has used the term "controversy" in the article only "dispute[d]", which is entirely accurate. There is a date of birth (October 31), but the year is disputed. I'm fine with just saying in the lede "born October 31, 1925/1926 (varying sources)" or words to that effect, for instance. Quis separabit? 16:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the verb form of what some might consider a dispute, such as some argument or debate. But I still prefer arriving at a single year. WP is a tertiary source, like any other encyclopedia. We should be able to use our best judgement and simply note any second opinions about a fact. We can also change it if better sources show up.--Light show (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objection to removing the primary sources? --Light show (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a simple suggestion to bring the bio back to earth. First, we agree on the guidelines about not overusing primary sources:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.

Then we come to a consensus about which secondary sources are the most reliable. I mentioned two examples in the previous section, and there are obviously others, including her own testimony at the HUAC. From that consensus, we choose a single dob for the bio, and include the other RSs for other dates as a note. While the date may be scientifically incorrect, what is correct now IMO is that the bio is highly defective with its reliance on reaching absolute certainty. Thoughts?--Light show (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right about the way the birth year controversy is distracting. However, the question of which year to choose still remains. On the other hand it could be argued that the bio is so detailed that this distraction may be ignored. As to your question, it was in reference to Quis separabit?, who wished Grant a happy birthday in her talk page.Radiohist (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems much more than a distraction since it's typically considered a vital detail for a bio, in this one at the top of the lead and infobox. So why not go by what she tacitly admitted to in the recent audio interview you added? She did not disagree when the interviewer said she got her first Oscar nomination when when she was 24. We could easily cite this and add sources with a comment such as "although other dates have been noted." I also think removing the primary sources would support the guidelines, since while she has admitted to lying about her age on public documents (in the same interview,) it was related to her early career and the need to be younger. --Light show (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point. I'd agree to that.Radiohist (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From this mini-consensus, I can add as her dob 1928 based on her most recent acknowledgement, and add notes about contradictory RS dates (excluding primary sources.) --Light show (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She also confirmed 1928 during her 2014 interview with Robert Osborne (08:13), where she said she was 24 when she received the award (1952).--Light show (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"She also confirmed 1928" -- no, she claimed it -- two very different verbs.

I disagree and there is no reason to change the format which makes clear that the year is disputed, without privileging any one year over the other. Census records and travel manifests indicate 1925 or 1926, but I am not pushing. So we should leave it the way it was/is. Quis separabit? 03:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary vs. secondary sources

The basis for the different dates are primary sources, such as census records and travel manifests. But the guidelines say that RSs should be secondary sources, and Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source. So do we have secondary sources listing different dates? (I'm not using the word "disputed" since that implies people are disputing the dates.)

And per the discussions, there is a consensus to use 1928. Is there some guideline that states that where two or more facts differ, neither one can be included, even with a note? Is an RfC needed? --Light show (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a consensus for the 1928 date. Also, Grant seems to be inconsistent about her year of birth if she has given 1928 in interviews. She testified (presumably under oath) to the HUAC that she was born in 1926. If I had to take Grant at her word I would take her testimony under oath over a celeb interview. It seems to me the debate over her true year of birth was handled correctly before the recent changes. Betty Logan (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to a discussion that I can no longer find (BLPN or the like maybe?) (here it is): I think the current version is a good solution. When a birthdate is disputed, great care should be taken when using information from non-independent sources and sources that may not have fact-checked the information. Census records are very good primary sources, as are other legal documents, but especially birth records. See Talk:Rebecca De Mornay and Talk:Lydia_Cornell for examples of using both primary and secondary sources together. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz: Can you please clarify which solution you mean? The current version of the article uses the 1928 date which comes exclusively from interviews with Grant, and therefore relies on a primary source (and the year contradicts the year Grant provided to HUAC under subpoena. The previous version provided a range of date between 1925 and 1929 and relied on a mix of secondary and primary sources (i.e. biographies, census data and her Huac testimony). Personally I think the long-standing solution up to the most recent changes were the most robust solution. Betty Logan (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I like that there is a note about the date being disputed.

If a single year is listed, given what has been presented here, it should be 1925. Having a range is a good solution. In articles without high-quality sources, not stating a year is the common solution.

The census data are fairly strong primary sources. If there are independent, secondary sources supporting it, a proposal based upon those should strongly be considered.

I think it would be best to remove content about her lying about her birth year, unless very reliable, independent, secondary sources make it clear that such information is encyclopedic somehow. Green is gold in entertainment, so presenting it as a personal issue (or flaw) seems to me a rather blatant BLP, NPOV, and NOT vio.

This is a very sensitive matter, and I think BLP needs to be followed closely. There are ongoing legal disputes that apply (Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc.). --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://wtop.com/entertainment/2015/07/screen-legend-dishes-on-oscar-emmys-blacklist/ gives her birth year as 1925. I'm seeing little for '26, a considerable number for '27, few for '28, very little for '29. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems little has been resolved about the issues: 1) Is analysis to paralysis undermining the bio?, or 2) Primary vs. secondary sources.

It's useful that a few non-editors to this bio have stopped by to make comments, but the issues noted have not been resolved. This is a 3,000-word article and there appears to be an intense effort to imply that there is a dispute about her dob, so we can't give one. IMO, the effort is misguided and there certainly is no "dispute."

About some of the the new comments, Betty Logan wrote that her "presumably under oath" HUAC statement should take priority as another primary source. But note that her HUAC testimony came from a secondary source by an author who was not there. As for the strange amount of forensic research about what she wrote on a census form, a number of details: There is no link to the actual forms, although the cite says they were online. And Grant already said in the radio interview that she once asked the Mayor of Los Angeles to change her drivers license date, which would be a bit harder than filling out a census form. In any case, census data, even if we have it, is a primary source, and the point of the discussion is whether they should take precedence over secondary sources. The guidelines say no.

Her recent radio and TV interviews are both primary and secondary sources combined. The interviewer stated her age and she tacitly agreed.

Personally, I don't care which date is used, and don't assume too many readers care either. The point is whether it undermines the bio to have a few editors create an imaginary "dispute" about something so insignificant. I just looked at how a very reliable 1,600-page encyclopedia dealt with it, (International Dictionary of Films and Filmakers: Actors and Actesses) and it's similar to what we have now. It has the year, and in parentheses states, "some sources give ..." Very simple and logical. Nor is there any "dispute," which for some reason a few editors claim there is, since a "dispute" implies some sort of argument, and there are no arguments. We only have some different sources which include different dates. --Light show (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Witness testimony to HUAC was recorded. The author does not have to be physically present for it to be a reliable source. Robert Vaughn, the author, has a PhD and his thesis about Hollywood blacklisting was published as a book. Do you honestly think he is incapable of accurately relaying witness testimony? Wikipedia favors secondary sources over primary sources so your position is not backed up by policy. Ultimately though it matters little what Grant actually says about her age as actors have been known to often misrepresent their ages. Grant herself is clearly inconsistent on the issue and secondary sources give different dates so per Rms125a@hotmail.com that should be reflected in the article as it was prior to your intereference. Betty Logan (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

It's a real dispute. Look at the reference that was removed: Carrie Rickey (2014-07-17). "'I Said Yes to Everything,' by Lee Grant". SFGate. Retrieved 2017-01-17. Lyova Rosenthal was born in the mid-1920s. The granddaughter of Polish and Russian immigrants is famously inexact about her age. Look at the other book reviews. She is not a reliable source for the year of her birth.

An interview is a primary source.

I agree we need clear verification if we were to try to use the census info, and secondary sources to back it up.

We've multiple, contradicting reliable sources, and this is a topic with legal consequences. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lee-Grant says 1927. Anything nearly as reliable saying different?

Is the HUAC testimony as reliable? I'm not sure, but I don't think it's more reliable. It's still primary. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source I gave is about 2,000% more reliable than Britannica, as it is a multi-volume encyclopedia with nearly 5,000 pages of pure movie industry bios. But it would be nice if some would at least attempt to respond to the original issues of these sections. I suggest, again, we reach a consensus to choose one date and add a note about the others. And since neither of you has contributed to the bio, feel free to opt out.

Per Betty Logan's claim that because some SF journalist who read her autobiography and found no precise date, then that journalist becomes a reliable secondary source, is contradictory. He did what Robert Vaughn did, recite a primary source. Two recent interviewers also stated her age, which makes them secondary sources. And if, as BL says, "it matters little what Grant actually says," then we can also devalue her census forms and maybe her HUAC statements. But overall, both of you are bouncing between valuing and devaluing primary sources, whether it came from her autobiography or her statements. And the main result creates this imaginary "dispute," which still undermines the bio. and is the key problem. The only dispute is unnecessarily taking place on this bio. --Light show (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP requires we get it right, especially when there are legal consequences.

To get this dispute settled, maybe we could clearly list all the sources we are considering with a quote covering what each source states? --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should restore lede and infobox (in re year of birth only) to last stable edit ([2]), which doesn't privilege any particular year. Quis separabit? 23:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing for the HUAC date. I am simply pointing out that her testimony under oath contradicts the date she has given in other interviews. All the dates that Grant has given herself—whether through testimony or interviews—are primary sources and are equally subject to policy in that regard. The assertion that Grant's dob is not in dispute is clearly not the case so I second the suggestion by Quis separabit to revert to the WP:STATUSQUO. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted to the sourced version that I created that doesn't give an exact year, then copied the reference and note to the infobox. At least this version is sourced and the accuracy of the content is not disputed. As far as presentation, I find it awkward.

This version mentioned [3] seems better in that it gives a more specific and verifiable range. I don't think it is an OR violation if sourced, but I think we need the sources to back it up. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your changes were made against the consensus of actual editors, which contradicts your rationale, "clearly no consensus to include." By "actual editors," I'm referring to editors who actually contributed to the article, not just curious drive-byes. Of the main still-active editors, I added about 1,400 words of text, Rms125 about 900, and Radiohist, about 500. However you and Betty Logan have contributed absolutely nothing.

Radiohist and I agreed that the 1928 date should be used and gave the reasons (see above section, "Is analysis to paralysis undermining the bio?") It's common sense and logical that when you have three editors actively working on an article over many years, their opinion should take priority. --Light show (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP creates very strict requirements for content and consensus. 1928 is verified so far by nothing that isn't primary, so it is a BLP violation to include it. If you want to find some consensus for it, start by finding a better source. If the International Dictionary of Films and Filmakers: Actors and Actesses that you mentioned gives that date, please quote and provide additional details for verification. I couldn't find it, but then I don't know which volume, edition, entry, page, etc you may be referring to. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for further reliable, secondary sources, but I'm not finding any. Maybe someone else will have better luck. --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the article content to a new version, that only specifies she was born in the 20s. What range we give in the notes should depend on what sources we find, and some of those sources need to be in the note itself. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) First of all there is not a consensus between the three "regular" editors since one of you has protested against the selection of a single date. Neither do the frequency of your edits to this article have any bearing on interpretation of policy: WP:Verifiability is quite clear that secondary sources take priority over primary sources. There is a clear discrepancy between what Grant has said in interviews, what she has testified to, what census records state and what various biographies say (as detailed below). Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to both of you, that there aren't secondary sources for 1928, that's been explained a few times. In two very recent live interviews, the interviewer stated both on TV (TCM) and the radio, that she was 24 when she got her award. Grant never added to or disputed the fact; she simply said nothing. The implication is clear. And the reason why those interviews are probably the most accurate was explained in the earlier section. The IDFF uses "1926 (some sources give 1928 or 1931)," although it was written over 20 years ago.

There are bios where the spelling of the person's name differs in various sources. We don't delete their name and turn it into a dispute.

But the guideline seems clear: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. The date sections below rely on primary and tertiary sources (encyclopedias.) The best secondary source so far seems to be the two interviews. In any case, I'm not hung up on whether she's now 88 or 91 or whatever, only that the bio looks compromised by its confusion. --Light show (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Google books throws up every single year between 1926 and 1931. Unless one of these secondary sources can confirm they have seen documented proof (i.e. a birth certificate, passport etc) then they do not trump any other secondary source. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of potential sources for birth year

Verifying 1925

• The 1930 census (Source Citation: Year: 1930; Census Place: Manhattan, New York, New York; Roll: 1577; Page: 11B; Enumeration District: 1027; Image: 588.0; FHL microfilm: 2341312. Source Information: Ancestry.com. 1930 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2002. Original data: United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1930. T626, 2,667 rolls) gives her age as 4 and 6/12 months (i.e. 4 ½ years old).
• The 1940 census (Source Citation: Year: 1940; Census Place: New York, New York, New York; Roll: T627_2671; Page: 9A; Enumeration District: 31-1922. Source Information: Ancestry.com. 1940 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2012. Original data: United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1940. T627, 4,643 rolls) gives her age as 14. Although it should be noted that her first name is given as "Lyniva" in 1930 and "Lyoua" in 1940 ([4] and [5])
• Jason Fraley. Screen legend dishes on Oscar, Emmys, Blacklist. July 6, 2015.

Verifying 1926

• Robert Vaughn. Only Victims: A Study of Show Business Blacklisting. 1972 p 227

  Her HUAC testimony is primary and not independent. Still, it was under oath. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying 1927

• Roberts, Jerry. Encyclopedia of Television Film Directors, Scarecrow Press, 1st edition (June 5, 2009), Amazon Digital Services, Inc; ASIN: B009W3C7E8
• Katz, Ephraim. The Film Encyclopedia, Harper Perennial (1998) p. 552 ISBN 0-06-273492-x Parameter error in ((ISBN)): invalid character

  removed with Roberts(2009) (above)[6] --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Encyclopedia Britannica. Lee Grant

Verifying 1928

Two secondary sources: She tacitly agreed she was born in 1928 in two recent interviews when the interviewers themselves stated that she was 24 when she received her Oscar: Audio interview with Gilbert Gottfried, Nov. 2016, and interview with Robert Osborne in 2014 (08:13) --Light show (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are primary, non-independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify how they are primary and not independent. They meet all the requirements for being a valid secondary source. --Light show (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are interviews, her own words. That's primary and not independent.

She's said a great deal about her age. To cherry-pick what she says in some interviews over others is an OR and POV violation. It's why we use secondary sources rather than primary: A reliable source may analyze her many statements and provide a summary or identify summarizing statements (which I think there actually may be, which is makes the POV violation even worse), but we don't. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is correct. She said nothing about her age. Nothing was cherry picked; it it was you would have found other secondary sources to include here. There is no undue weight per your tag. There is no POV violation; quite the opposite, your continual replacing reliable sources with tags is the violation. And since you've never edited the article, your drive-by edit warring with erroneous statements is disruptive and strange. I suggest you review the interviews this time to correct your wrong statements.--Light show (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree. I see nothing wrong in any of my statements, and without any evidence I see no reason to comment on them further. Consensus is made by focusing on content and policy, not on editors.

In BLP's, the burden of proof is strongly on those who wish to include the material. Please make a case that we can all agree upon. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You see nothing wrong with any of the statements? Would you like me to point them out one by one again? No problem. Since you're presumably unable to watch or listen the interviews yourself, I can do that for you. --Light show (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of the other real editors can join the discussion about this. Adding that the other primary editor at one time argued that 1928 was correct. --Light show (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a@hotmail.com has contributed extensively to the discussion already and quite obviously supports a solution that does not favor a specific date. What he did say or didn't say six years ago clearly does not reflect his current view. But if you want to bring in more *real* editors in I suggest you file an RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With what rationale? It's obvious which of the sources listed above are either primary, secondary, or tertiary. Is there any question about any of those? The key question was already posted on the RS talk page, with over 1,000 watchers. -Light show (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the rationale that it is an option open to you in the pursuit of a consensus because you clearly have not got one here. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus about what? I've asked if there were any disputes about those sources. If you have an opinion, please give it. Do you dispute which of the sources are primary, secondary, or tertiary? If you do, please explain. --Light show (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC or BLPN. We don't agree that these primary sources even belong. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third request: Please give a basis for claiming that those obvious secondary sources are actually primary. And again, if primary sources don't belong, then remove all the others. --Light show (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The primary and secondary nature of a source is determined by how they are used. If the interviewer says "Lee Grant was born in 1928..." then it is being used as a secondary source. If the question is put to Grant that she was born in 1928 and she says "That is correct" then it is being used as a primary source. Either way this is irrelevant. There are other secondary sources that put her year of birth at every year between 1926 and 1931 so there is no reason to prefer one over the other as you are inclined to do, and in respect to primary sources census records and testimony under oath to Congress are far more persuasive than a celeb interview. Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is circular. First, she was not asked as a direct question and did not reply about her age. She tacitly agreed. She didn't say "that is correct." Second, I've been asking repeatedly for you and Ronz to provide other secondary sources, which you say there are (somewhere,) but continually evade the issue and don't give any. Third, we all apparently agree that primary sources don't belong, yet neither of you, or the missing regular editors, will do so. Fourth, you are violating RS guidelines and edit warring by deleting valid citations, in fact the only ones that are in fact secondary and reliable per guidelines. Fifth, you are fabricating a guideline to support removing obvious secondary sources claiming they are primary, yet have no issue with the massive 500-word group of primary sources in the article.--Light show (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using her "agreement" to source her age you are using information directly from her. That is the basic definition of a primary source. Secondly, you are violating WP:NPOV by promoting one date over another. Thirdly you are violating WP:NOCONSENSUS. And finally, you also persist in avoiding the fact that there are countless secondary sources that put her date of birth at other years besides 1928 and there is absolutely no reason to give your source primacy over other source. WP:Verifiability does not discount primary sources, it merely issues a preference for secondary sources. If you want to add your two interviews to the list of sources then do so, but do not use it as anexcuse to promote your favored date over other equally applicable dates. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating yourself isn't adding anything new. You go further than Ronz, in fact, claiming "there are countless secondary sources," yet are again unable to provide any. As it is, there are only those two interviews that are secondary sources, so claiming that I am promoting one source over another is nonsense. I also replied to your consensus issue and you've again ignored the question. And as stated at the beginning of this entire discussion, I don't care what date is used and have no "favorite" dates, as you said.

Word games don't do it either: ie. By your reasoning, if you told someone that you believed they were from Mars, and they didn't reply, then the person effectively stated they were from Mars. --Light show (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every year between 1925 and 1931 is now sourced to a secondary source. Now please stop flogging this WP:DEADHORSE or start an RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the four you added as source #1 is a secondary source. The other three are encyclopedias or a review and quotes from her book. The only other and much better secondary sources are the interviews you keep redefining as primary. --Light show (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As has now been pointed out ad nausem: if you are attributing statements to her (as you are doing) then you are using the source as primary. If you are going to use your source in a secondary capacity then you have to focus on what the interviewer says. Also, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources states Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other which is clearly the case here. Betty Logan (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're getting tired of nauseum, try responding to the comment. You simply ignored the issues about your three primary/tertiary sources, and the fact that the interviewers claimed she was 24. You're Darwinistic replies are going nowhere. And once again, no one is attributing anything to statements she made. --Light show (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that provide a range of years

• Rickey, Carrie (July 17, 2014), "'I Said Yes to Everything,' by Lee Grant", SFGate.com, retrieved January 22, 2017, Lyova Rosenthal was born in the mid-1920s. The granddaughter of Polish and Russian immigrants is famously inexact about her age. From her mid-20s to her mid-30s, the blacklist left her unemployable in TV and film, so she lied about her years, whatever they were, to remain viable as an actress.

  Currently used in the first note. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other - 1924?

• We consider the extensive investigation by Muzilon, who concluded none of the above. Then we all go back to the stacks and find out if she was in fact really born or actually exists. --Light show (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find birth records and didn't find anything because the records are difficult to access. I cannot verify what Muzilon found. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And unlike some other jurisdictions, New York State birth certificates are private and are available only to the person named on the certificate, his/her parents, or else by court order. I believe this restriction is relaxed for births that occurred over 100 years ago, but we have a few years to wait for that. Muzilon (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be 0 evidence to back up the 1924 birth year. Same goes for the 1930 and 1931 birth year.Radiohist (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Met Opera debut in 1931

I've been looking for the year. I've not found a source that specifically gives it, but the facts seem to all point to '31. I think it would be OR to include it without a source clearly identifying the year, but it's worth looking for as such early life details are good indicators of actual birthdates. I'll track down and list a few of the sources I'd previously found. There are multiple sources quoting that she was either 3 or 4 when she debuted. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.nydailynews.com/movie-memory-lee-grant-1976-article-1.495393 "she made her stage debut at the Metropolitan Opera at age 4" December 1, 2002 --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Fraley, Jason (2015-07-06). "Screen legend dishes on Oscar, Emmys, Blacklist". WTOP. Retrieved January 18, 2017. "Grant made her stage debut at age 4 at the Metropolitan Opera" --Ronz (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Playing Joan: Actresses on the Challenge of Shaw's Saint Joan : Twenty-six Interviews p 229 1987. "At age four as Hoo-Chee in L'Oracolo, Metropolitan Opera" --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• [7] 06/21/2014 “LITTLE Lyova Haskell Rosenthal is precocious,” commented the New York Times after the young child actress had warned the tenor onstage that an actor was sneaking up on him with a big knife in a scene from L’Oracolo. --Ronz (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I've not been able to find the New York Times article mentioned. It would be extremely helpful if it could be found. --Ronz (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Searching http://archives.metoperafamily.org for "Oracolo" between 1927 and 1936 gives: --Ronz (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • November 23, 1931 "Hu-Cî...Lyova Rosenthal [Debut]"
  • December 8, 1931 December 10, 1931 Matinee January 2, 1932 "Hu-Cî...Lyova Rosenthal"
  • January 27, 1932 "Hu-Cî...Rina Desana [Debut]"
  • January 20, 1933 "Hu-Cî...Lyova Rosenthal [Last performance]"
• Music Notes January 22, 1933. "Celia Babcock played the little child in "L'Oracolcr' at the Scotti fare-well, replacing Lyova Rosenthal, whose name appeared in the program and in published reviews" --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Olin Downes. THE OPERA; Scotti Cheered as Chim-Fen in "L'Oracolo"--Tribute to Mme. Jeritza in "Cavalleria." November 24, 1931 "Hoo-Chee...Lyova Rosenthal" --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The Philadelphia Inquirer. p 5 December 9, 1931. "by little Lyova Rosenthal, as a most amazingly precocious Hoo-Chee, who acted with all the detail and self -possession of any grizzled veteran" --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• http://christophercpurdy.blogspot.com/2014/08/i-said-yes-to-everything-interview-with.html

  Not a reliable source, but thought it worth noting because of the image. I'm guessing it is from Lee's book. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Antonio Scotti was the villian in L'Oracolo. The 1933 show was his last performance. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's the best solution, but I don't see how the WT:IRS discussion will move us along.

Looking at the independent, primary sources, 1925 is clear, but the secondary sources verifying it are rather poor. Can we agree that she wasn't born after 1928, given she appeared on stage as a child in November 1931?

I don't recall seeing a reference that gives a range, but then we've not populated the sections above about what sources say what. I'll add a subsection specifically for sources that give ranges. I'm going to assume there are none in the meantime.

Grant is clearly not a reliable source for the year of her birth, so we shouldn't be presenting any quotes from her, interviews, etc, without a reliable independent secondary source that clearly demonstrates why such information should be presented.

We do have a source that specifically says, "Lyova Rosenthal was born in the mid-1920s." I don't think we can go far wrong using that rather than a range. I don't expect anyone is going to argue for a specific year instead.

Note that we need to take care to avoid original research (especially combining information from multiple references to create or justify information) and neutrality problems (especially giving weight to information or sources where it is not due). --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Darryl Lyman source in ref 1 gives a 1926–1930 range, but I can live with "mid 1920s" per SFGate. There is no shortage of secondary sources for any year from the latter half of the decade, but there is compelling primary source evidence for 1925, 1926 and 1927. The census records clearly indicate 1925 under a strict interpretation but this relies on her parents filling the form in correctly. It is possible they misread it and thought it required the age she would reach in that year (especially if their literacy was not good), or just rounded to her nearest age (my mother always did this) or had a motive for making her appear older i.e. getting her into school a year earlier. The HUAC transcripts clearly indicate 1926, but this information came from Grant herself so again is not infallible. The 1931 stage debut indicates she was 4 (which suggests a 1927 date) but the show coincided with her birthday so perhaps there was legitimate confusion there. I am not convinced by the 1928 date from the most recent interviews, since I don't really understand why she would add two years to her age and lie under oath to HUAC, so mid-1920s works for me. We have an explicit source for it (with a clear rationale for the confusion) and compelling primary sources back it up. Betty Logan (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A range for the dob creates a Prima facie defective bio. I again propose that we select from the secondary sources, maybe supported by primary or tertiary, including her own statements. We choose a single dob for the bio, and include the range as a note, which we have. While the date may be incorrect, the bio will no longer look defective, and with added notes that error is neutralized. The largest actor print encyclopedia ever published (IDFF, mentioned earlier,) states: October 31, 1926 (some sources give 1928 or 1931). That's the most logical way to do it IMO, since it supports V, NPOV, and OR guidelines.

But if the consensus is that because some census forms and RSs have different dates, then all given dobs are questionable, which allows anyone in WP to use that as a precedence for other questionable bio details. For instance, if someone during their career has RSs showing contradictory facts about anything, then an editor can claim that neither statement can be mentioned except as a note. Result: Analysis paralysis. --Light show (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A single date is not mandated, and I would say inappropriate in this case. We have a source that specifically states "mid-1920s" (with a supporting rationale for the confusion) so it satisifies WP:V. The SFGate article is also a secondary source which satisfies the requirement that secondary sources are given preference over primary sources. It also satisfies WP:DUE which requires each significant point of view to be proportionally represented i.e. it does not promote any single date, and is consistent with all the compelling primary sources, such as the census, her testimony and contemporary sources regarding her debut. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That SFGate article is essentially a primary source, since it's a review of her autobiography. There are older newspapers which include different dates. In two recent interviews, she supported 1928, and she had no reason to give an erroneous date since she no longer needed to pass for a teenager. --Light show (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SFGate article is essentially a primary source I doubt you'll find any agreement to that.

she had no reason to give an erroneous date since... That's original research to promote a viewpoint not in any sources while attempting to discredit contradicting sources. She is simply not a reliable source for the year of her birth, and it would require exceptionally qualified sources to change that. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OR is not an issue for a talk page. Every comment here, including all the ones you just made, are OR. BL argues that what two independent interviewers said were primary because she was at the interview. That's OR. A journalist reciting facts from her autobiography are obviously closer to being a primary source since the statements were not independent and simply reiterating a primary source. In fact, both your and BL's arguments are off-topic and digressions from the original and key issue, which I just stated again. --Light show (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to understand. Anything I can do to help? My point is that the interviews should be removed, and the only reason they are there is because of your OR. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can help by staying on point. The topic has nothing to do with OR-land, mine or anyone's. Everyone agrees that no absolute correct date is likely to be found. Nor is one needed. And if you feel that primary sources should be removed, then remove them all, not just the one BL contrived with their own OR. --Light show (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In her own autobiography she says she was 24 when she received her first oscar nomination which would put her dob at 1927. She states there was a 16-year age gap between her husband Arnold Manoff and herself, which suggests 1930. By your own logic she has no reason to lie about her age in her autobiography too but her statements continue to be contradictory and unreliable. Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She also says in her biography that she was 4 when she debuted in L'Oracolo, which also gives 1927. The issue is that she's not reliable. Asking to have other sources removed goes back to my original concerns: removing due viewpoints based upon original research. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually mind keeping Light show's interviews provided they are kept in the note with all the other stuff. I think the note and the accompanying sources help build the the case for a non-specific date in the article itself. The fact is Grant is not reliable for this information which has probably infected secondary sources if they simply use the date she has provided. She even states she called in a favor from the mayor to wipe five years off her age on her driving license, so public records cannot be relied on fully either. I think we need a secondary source that is explicitly aware of Grant's unreliability in regards to her age. The SFGate article clearly meets this criteria: it is also not acting in a primary source capacity because it does not simply parrott facts from Grant's book. The author acknowledges the discrepancies and has deduced she was born in the "mid-1920s" i.e. it has evaluated the primary source and drawn its own conclusions, which is the very definition of a secondary source. Betty Logan (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statements by TCM's Robert Osborne and the radio interview, were so far the most and only independent ones we have. Someone reviewing her book and using that as a source for their news story, is being minimally independent. Especially when they didn't claim they did any research into her dob. But BL went further, since she never said in her autobiography that she was 24, contrary to what BL said.

So thank you both for clearing things up. You just proved my point and supported my worst fears. Hopefully some serious and neutral referees can put on a uniform. You've both turned this into a teamish-like discussion, with no winners, only losers. --Light show (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To quote her directly: "I’d been nominated for my first Academy Award in 1952 for Detective Story — I won in 1976 for Shampoo. Twenty-four years later, exactly my age at the time of the first nomination." If she was not 24 at the age of the first nomination how exactly do you interpret that sentence? Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Then we can just use 1928, based on her recent bio and statements from two recent interviewers, and include as a note or in parentheses, other dates. Then WP won't be the only encyclopedia that won't give a reasonable dob. --Light show (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her nomination date and age implies she was born in 1927, not 1928. Also, her same bio suggests her husband Arnold Manoff is 16 years older which would put her dob at 1930. Then there is her testimony in which she says she was born in 1926. As has been pointed out to you endlessly now, Grant is not a reliable source for her age. How many times does this need to be spelt out to you? I really think you should take a break from the article because you have clearly lost your objectivity. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus for 1928 here, nor in the sources.

Anyone against stating "mid-1920's" rather than the range we currently have? --Ronz (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support it. Light show won't though and it takes more than a single person majority to forge a consensus. Maybe an RFC is the way to go on this? Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Objectively, you are both digressing into clearly pointless directions. Truth, is not the issue; the bio needs a date. Yet you keep drifting off onto side-roads. --Light show (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a clear reason, preferably backed with policies or guidelines, on why you prefer a date range instead? --Ronz (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense. "Mid-1920s" sounds ridiculous for a bio's dob. Plus it's not even true. Why not "early 20th century"? Then again, even Jesus and Moses have dates, not ranges. --Light show (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP requires that we cannot simply follow "common sense". Will you revert if it is changed to "mid-1920s", knowing that we have a source that says exactly that? [8] --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely. I trust common sense. --Light show (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to make an alternate proposal? --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reread my above comments, many of which include one. --Light show (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify proposals you think should be included in an RfC. You might want to make it/them in the article so it's clear what you're proposing then self-revert back to the current version. --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question should be whether your your "bold" edit should be reverted. Expanding the notes is OK, although the massive list of different dates is absurd and could be tightened. It makes the bio harder to dig through with excessive minutia. IMO, (OR alert!) hardly anyone will care whether she's now 89 or 90 or whatever. And again, any reasonably supported date is fine with notes. Recall that the original issue was whether a single date was best, and which one. There was a 2 to 1 consensus, by the main editors, to use 1928. I personally didn't expect your way of commenting.--Light show (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two-to-one is not a consensus, and if you accept it as one then this issue is resolved and we install "mid-1920s". As for the issue of reverting, if this article is to be reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO then it should restore the 1925–1929 range that was in place at the beginning of the year before you attempted to impose a single date. If you want to extend the upper-bound back to 1929 be my guest. Betty Logan (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that those three editors added over half the text in the bio, and the next 3 after them are no longer active, it was a clear consensus. The decision was to include a date with footnotes. Nothing was "imposed," as there was a long discussion among the three editors. We don't need the drama. --Light show (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't agreement between three editors though. The most active editor on this article and second largest contributor disagreed and you claimed a consensus with a majority of one. Also, it was you who sought outside intervention and I bet you wouldn't be complaining if third-party opinion was going your way. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was open to anyone. And the second largest contributor, if we excluded their massive census citations and other cites focused only on the dob, would actually have been the third largest contributor. --Light show (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't feel an RfC is needed. Both you and BL are drive-byes who had never contributed the the bio. I feel a self-revert on your part is the simplest solution, and the discussion can continue. If so few of the 1,000-plus watchers at IRS wanted to comment after two weeks, it's unlikely any casual RfC editors will add much. --Light show (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand your position. You already reverted the my edit that you identified [9].

So no alternate proposal at this time? No policies or guidelines to discuss? No sources to discuss? --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you Ronz, but I am getting a strong WP:OWN vibe here, with this editor defending his position as the "main" contributor and accusing neutral editors as "drive bys". I am generally happy to make concessions to the main editors over stylistic decisions, but all editors are entitled to review content in regards to WP:V and WP:NPOV. We are going to need some wider input. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the problems, I think an RfC is a good next step. WT:IRS is not a venue for discussing article disputes, so we shouldn't expect discussions there to resolve anything. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the reasonable options, you both have essentially limited the probability of getting RfCs. You've created a massive amount of off-topic and mostly irrelevant smoke out of what was a small question. This discussion, thanks to you guys, is now almost 8,000 words, excluding all the links and citations. Which, BTW, makes the discussion 4 times the length of the bio itself. That blast of hot air about some opera debut alone, would prevent me from expecting or imposing on any neutral editor the task of trudging through the dust storm you've created. As for claiming neither of you still understand my position, which has been stated over a dozen times just over the last few days, what can I say that's not implied? --Light show (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lee Grant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724120329/http://www.wif.org/past-recipients to http://wif.org/past-recipients

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to rehash a topic that has clearly been discussed to death, but I came across an on-camera interview from April 2017 where the reporter asks Grant is asked what year she was born to put the question to rest, and she tells him she was "outed" as being born in 1925, and confirms that as her birth year. If the previous years she's given were to purposely make her seem younger, I cannot think of a reason why she would admit she was born in 1925 (as it dates her the oldest) if it weren't true. The link is here: [10] Not sure if it's worth anything, but I thought I'd put it here for consideration/documentation. It may prove useful at some point. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: My mistake; I just now realized in the clip she says she's 90, but that her birth year is 1925, which does not make sense. Just more complications. Yikes. Discard the above I suppose --Drown Soda (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Thankyou, that video is interesting and par for the course with Grant. Various public records seem to imply the 1925 date. However, Grant herself testified to Congress that she was born in 1926, and that was before she started to lie about her age. In her autobiography from 2014 she stated that she was 24 when she won her oscar, which would put her dob in 1927. And in that video her age (90) would indicate she was born in 1926 and yet she states 1925. Unfortunately I don't think we can really put much stock in what she says on this subject. She was almost certainly born in 1925 or 1926, with 1927 an outside possibility, but I am not sure we will ever pin her exact age down. Betty Logan (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: further to our discussion near the top of this page, I have updated the "primary sources" endnote with the fresh evidence from the New York City birth index, which also supports the 1925 date. If someone wants to open a new RfC, that's fine by me.--Muzilon (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So one more primary source for '25, plus an interview that's inconsistent? I wish we had more... --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in the video; it falls in the same catgeory as all the other dates Grant has given. She is not a reliable source for her dob. As for this birth registration/certificate, if we have a physical record from 1925 then that would be definitive IMO. A census from 1930 or a ship mainfest from 1940 can get the dates wrong, but an actual record dating from 1925 would settle the matter more or less. We really need to see the scan to assess its authenticity before moving forward with another RFC. If we are going to pin down an exact date we have to be sure we are right. Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the NYC birth index just gives the name, date of birth, and NYC certificate registration number. (See here for an example.) The full certificate itself is not on Ancestry.com. As I've mentioned elsewhere on this page, New York birth certificates are protected by privacy laws for (I think) 100 years.--Muzilon (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lee Grant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502211533/http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=wiarchives;view=reslist;subview=standard;didno=uw-whs-tape00339a to http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=wiarchives;view=reslist;subview=standard;didno=uw-whs-tape00339a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Her birth was very clearly registered in 1925 (see screenshot - third name in first column).
• She was 4 during the 1930 Census and 14 in 1940 United States Federal Census - both took place in the spring, prior to her birthday.
• Finally, in 1933, her birthdate is recorded as 31 October 1925 on an immigration form when re-entering the United States while traveling with her mother. Document is very faint, but if you look at it, it is clear it is 1925. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC above has gone over all of this. Yes, 1925 is the most likely year and the best supported by the evidence and on a personal level I believe it was 1925, but none of this is conclusive: the New York Birth Index confirms that a Lyova Rosenthal was born in 1925, but it does not provide enough secondary information to conclusively identify the subject of the article. As for the census this could have be filled out incorrectly and the immigration document estimates her year of birth. The best approach is the one decided by the RFC above which utilises a note that details all the evidence for the different years. It is not Wikipedia's role to mount an investigation and uncover Grant's true age. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A stray keystroke jumbled some of the filmography grid. Please help when you have a moment. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwottring (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor removed mention of Grant's awards and nomination from the first paragraph in the lead. The edit was subsequently reverted by Hipal on the grounds that it is part of her notability.

While I agree with Hipal that it is indeed part of her notability and should definitely be mentioned in the lead, it is worth noting that her awards are already mentioned in the second and third paragraphs (with the exception of the DGA directing award), so essentially the IP was simply eliminating some redundancy. I am of the opinion that the awards do not need to be mentioned twice in the lead. A good template for incorporating awards information into the lead can be seen at Laurence Olivier. I would suggest reinstating the IP's edit and adding in mention of the DGA award to the third paragraph. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out Laurence Olivier. If that's the general consensus for such articles, then fine by me. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the reversion of my addition to the Factbox (31/1/21), it came from the Wiki page for Joseph Feury: He and Grant are the parents of Belinda Fioretti. - admittedly unreferenced. Valetude (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valetude, Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles are not considered valid sources for use of information in other WP articles. If you can find a reliable source, then the information can be added again. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beeandzo and welcome to Wikipedia. I am enquiring about the latest edits you have made to this article. In the future, please note that if you change the content of an article, it is customary to add an edit summary explaining why in detail. In addition, it is very important to always cite (WP:CITE) reliable sources (WP:RS) when you add information to an article, especially when you are working on the biography of a living person. Here are a the edits I would like to ask you about:

• [11] and [12]: could you provide a detailled source for her marriage date?
• [13]: could you explain why you changed the occupation of her mother?
• [14]: could you explain why you removed the "mixed reviews" info?

Thank you. JBchrch (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure how to reference everything, sorry. But in terms of the first point: in her biography, I Said Yes To Everything, Lee Grant mentioned that she met Joseph Fioretti when her daughter was five years old, which would have been in 1961/1962. She also mentioned in the book that they didn't get married until much later. Her daughter Dinah also said that Lee and Joseph lived together "for 12 years" before they got married. www.youtu.be/cyczBjsVrCQ (at 5:17 in the video) The occupation of her mother is also from the book. She mentions in the book that her mother ran a day care as a profession. In reading a lot of reviews of the film, they were slightly more positive than "mixed." Beeandzo (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Beeandzo[reply]

If the assertion that reviews were mixed came from the accompanying citation then it should not be replaced by your own appraisal of the reviews. Betty Logan (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been several recent edits to the infobox ([16], [17] & [18]) which can only be described as unconstructive. Grant has had a long, eventful, and notable career; she is primarily known for being an actress who has had a string of high-profile film and TV appearances, so narrowing her notability down to just a single film is not particularly helpful. If Grant had never made Shampoo she would still be an actress of some note.

Also, invoking the "awards" parameter in this manner is not consistent with how the parameter is used in other articles. It is generally used to link to standalone lists if one exists. You can see an example of its usage at Kate Winslet and Scarlett Johansson. Just because the parameter is there does not mean it has to be used. You need to consider how helpful the information is to the reader. For this reason it is better to stick to established precedents. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]